They say "axles and hubs" but don't say what in an axle or hub you can JB weld. I can't imagine what you'd want to JB weld on either one of those... even low-load items like ABS sensors wouldn't be worth the risk IMHO.I'm a noob
That's why I was asking here.
BTW, I'm curious, what's the worst that could happen if I jb welded that?
Also why does JB weld state car axles&hubs as an application?
http://jbweld.net/products/uses.php
Listen to this man, the risks far outweigh any cost saving.They say "axles and hubs" but don't say what in an axle or hub you can JB weld. I can't imagine what you'd want to JB weld on either one of those... even low-load items like ABS sensors wouldn't be worth the risk IMHO.
Good luck getting anything that resembles a decent adhesive joint on that thing. I would much sooner take it to a welder and have it tacked back together.
If it broke after JB-welding it you'd have chucks of JB weld and whatever reinforcing material you used floating around everywhere in the CV joint. Bad news. A reman'd half-shaft assembly is around $60-70... just do it right. A failure could easily turn into a "call a tow truck" fiasco, if not worse, and will undoubtedly happen at the worst possible time.
Wiki says 13.97" front, 14.37" rear..sounds about right.JLee, 14" brakes?
Build thread??Listen to this man, the risks far outweigh any cost saving.
Today I am tearing down a 302 to see if I can salvage the block on this knocking engine.
Oh forgot to tell you guys, Bought a 95 mustang... .
wtfbbq. thats how big my stock triangle rims are!Wiki says 13.97" front, 14.37" rear..sounds about right.
haha, yep! Same size as OEM 91 MR2 wheels toowtfbbq. thats how big my stock triangle rims are!
Larger rear brakes? wtfbbq?Wiki says 13.97" front, 14.37" rear..sounds about right.
My MR2 also has slightly larger rear rotors; not entirely sure why:Larger rear brakes? wtfbbq?
http://www.wheelsjamaicahost.com/wheels_forum/index.php?topic=54871.495;wap2
MR2 Brake Size Info:
Front Pad area: 50cm2 (1993); 49cm2 (1991/92)
Front Wheel Cylinder diam: same for 91-93 (36.5mm)
Front Rotor Size (D X T): 275 x 30mm [10.8"x1.2"] (93); 258 x 25 [10.1"x1.0"] (91/92)
Front Rotor Weight: 14lbs (93)
Rear Pad area: same for 91-93 ... 36mm inner; 35mm outer
Rear Wheel Cylinder Diam: 42.9mm (93); 41.3mm (91/92)
Rear Rotor Size (D x T): 281 x 22mm [11.0"x0.8"] (93); 263 x 16mm [10.3"x0.6"] (91/92)
Rear Rotor Weight: 11lbs (93)
Haven't seen that before. Interesting.My MR2 also has slightly larger rear rotors; not entirely sure why:
18", fortunately..tires are expensive enough alreadyHaven't seen that before. Interesting.
14+" rears, are you limited to 19" wheels?
That must be a tight fit.18", fortunately..tires are expensive enough already![]()
isnt the wheel size staggered on most MKII's? Could that have something to do with it? Must be a way to make up for front biasMy MR2 also has slightly larger rear rotors; not entirely sure why:
Wheel width is staggered, but not diameter, and the CTS-V has same size tires all around. Brake bias and pad size has more to do with braking than simply rotor size, though, maybe the larger brake rotors in the rear (non-vented in the MR2, IIRC) are for heat dissipation more than anything else?isnt the wheel size staggered on most MKII's? Could that have something to do with it? Must be a way to make up for front bias
so that would make sense then right? A wider tire has more contact patch, requires a larger stopping force to over come it?Wheel width is staggered, but not diameter.